Questions for David Hatcher Childress

We plan on return visits in the near future, partly to discuss his new book, "Yetis, Sasquatch and Hairy Giants," and partly to discuss some of the issues David raised during his first appearance on The Paracast.

I know you listeners have questions, and here's where you can post them. As usual, we never guarantee that we can ask everything, or that you'll like the response, but here's your chance to be part of the show.

David has eagerly agreed to address some of the controversial points he made during his first visit to the Paracast. "The harder the questions, the better."
He said that he would welcome the opportunity to respond to your submitted questions, etc. and address specific points concerning his research.

That's not a question, however.

The baby (you have thrown out) is flopping on the ground soaked from its bath wondering what it did, or you didn't do. Try doing a bit of reading and some of your own IN-DEPTH research before slagging the messenger and his sound-bites. If we had gone into anal minutia mode and had David spell out every single detail, source and attribution, the show would have bogged down into a tedious pool of geekiness that would not have covered the width and breadth of the info we addressed. If you are so interested in the subject: DO MORE RESEARCH. David has actually gone to these sites all around the world (some of them many times); he has written quite a number of excellent, thought-provoking books on these subjects, plus, he's published a bunch more titles by other authors on these subjects. Do I agree with him 100% NO, do I respect his amazing researching talent, infomed opinions and field experience? YES!

I promise, next time we have him on we'll stick to a single topic and I'll grill, roast and baste his work and opinions--just for you... You can take the show home in a doggy-bag with special sauce. Hopefully, this approach won't bog the show down to far into the land of adversarial minutia...but maybe you (and some others) will be pleased!

There's no need to get so defensive about TClaeys valid criticisms. The whole get out there an do the research stuff is getting extremely old, rather quickly. Most of us here do not have time to go to these sites to see for ourselves, which is why we rely on other people to provide is with information. That argument needs to die, and quick. I got through several art history paper using information I found in libraries and online without traveling to Italy or France. It's possible to do excellent research without leaving your city.
To me it seems like Childress is going against the grain of what "non-alternative" archeologists are telling us, just to grab some attention from people that are looking for a good story. With regards to his informed opinions: why is it that other people that have informed opinions (say, like NASA scientists) completely invalidate everything he says about the moon, using one example.

Where did I say anyone had to go anywhere except a library or Amazon? I didn't! Just because DHC has been to most of these sites and done the leg-work doesn't mean you (or anyone else) has to travel around the world for 30+ years like he has.

If you re-read my post I said "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH," read books, become informed, do the digging on the net, whatever it takes etc. Frankly, I wouldn't wish the field on most people. Even if they had the time, $ and motivation A) They couldn't hack it, B) They don't have the expertise to do it properly, C) You need a rather well-honed "bedside manner," (which many here do not possess) C) yada D) yada E) I could expand this list , if you want...

In short: IMO: Its advisable to not dog a man's many years of indepth research and fieldwork (and their informed opinion based on that work) with only cursory/casual knowledge of the subject matter....

Sorry about that Chris. I re-read what you wrote and I did misread it. You said Childress has gone to the sites, and you asked us to do our own research. My brain mixed the two together and voila, I gathered you were saying that the only valid opinion is one of someone that has actually been to a place he or she is talking about (at least on Earth). I made quite a jump in logic there, something I often blame others for doing. It just goes to show how easy it is for that to happen.

I don't agree with many (if any) of his conclusions, but it is admirable that he goes out there and sees things for himself.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

That whole Ted Phillips thing is annoying. He talks about all this evidence he has of something strange going on there but no one gets to see it. It would be astounding if he could prove it and he would drastically change my way of thinking about this stuff.

Childress is only speculating about stuff, he writes books about it, and people buy them. I tell if he even believes the stuff he writes, but it would make for crappy fiction, so he publishes it as non-fiction.
Phillips on the other hand genuinely believes in what he's doing, but he's shown nothing to prove it to naysayers like us. I'll gladly accept it if he can present a RAW image of a white dog monster. I say RAW because we'll know for a fact that it isn't 'shopped.

I never said that I modeled my approach after DHC's. You remind me of a wanna be, kinder, gentler, slicker Phil Klass, so what?

Lance's posts got me to thinking, so I did a little digging. Here is a bit of background on Mr. Moody our open-minded sceptic: This suggests to me what his real agenda is...

"The Association for Rational Thought (ART), the Cincinnati skeptics group, has two ongoing projects: the newsletter, which we publish quarterly (we have changed its name from the Association of Rational Thought News to Cincinnati Skeptic), and the Skeptical Blurbs program run by Lance Moody, our Media Resources Coordinator. We are assembling a file of short, clearly written summaries of what is reliably known about paranormal topics that turn up in the news, like ghosts, psychic powers, Satanism, and UFOs. Members write these blurbs for the areas they are particularly interested in. When one of the group sees or reads about a news item on a paranormal topic, he or she tells Lance, and he faxes the appropriate statement. Lance has also appeared as the token skeptic on a local-access cable-TV talk- show run by believing UFO “investigators.” Joe Gastright, our Investigations Officer, does an occasional investigation, but to my knowledge, he has done these solo. The group does not have an established investigations program." Figures.

This apparent agenda of rapid response debunking has nothing positive to offer these subjects. Period. They (the debunkers) have decided that these areas of research and study are all bullsh*t and they are making it their business to go after people in the field like junk-yard dogs. This is not my idea of "being part of the solution." This is friction producing and aggressive negativism, nothing more.

Your sarcastic manner and obvious agenda are getting old. Why don't you have psi-cops and /or ART assign you to another forum because you are becoming a real irritant to some around here. I know that this is the type of reaction you are seeking. This is a part of your agenda--passive/aggressive needling and baiting, and trying to get people to react, etc. so you can use their response as ammunition for more attacks, etc.

Here's what I'm going to do Lance: I am going to send you Ted's contact information. Why don't you start dogging him in person like you have been dogging him here. In the meantime I will give him a call myself and offer any and all help and assistance I can to get his data posted...NOT bitch, moan, insult and dog the man behind his back.